ArcoBlood Mod Finished - Page 5

quantum_mechani · #41 March 24th, 2005, 05:01 PM

Quote:

Grey said:
real attempts at magic to be evil.

Erm, evil? 'silly', I might say, but who are those people really harming?

BigDaddy · #42 March 24th, 2005, 06:56 PM

Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

quantum_mechani · #43 March 24th, 2005, 07:33 PM

Quote:

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

Actually, no. I'm not even nominally the member of any religion (or even an atheist). But calling people who try to practice magic 'evil' and getting upset over it seems even sillier than the people themselves.

Grey · #44 March 24th, 2005, 07:36 PM

By silly do you mean a real attempt at something seen as fantasty like (magic)? If so, in that case ignoring any Christian/Muslim/(Others religions which hold similiar doctrine vs magic) beliefs then they are not only hurting themselves but also society. Themselves since they are being delusional and therefore a candidate for treatment (maybe even shock therapy), and society since who will foot the bill but us. Now from the aforementioned religion's stand point they would only be hurting themselves, though certain followers might take offense and become judgemental and/or offensive. If you meant silly for another reason then I confess complete confusion and go back to chanting "EVIL

- I tell you just pure EVIL they is why they even have two nostrels..."

quantum_mechani · #45 March 24th, 2005, 07:54 PM

Quote:

Grey said:
By silly do you mean a real attempt at something seen as fantasty like (magic)? If so, in that case ignoring any Christian/Muslim/(Others religions which hold similiar doctrine vs magic) beliefs then they are not only hurting themselves but also society. Themselves since they are being delusional and therefore a candidate for treatment (maybe even shock therapy), and society since who will foot the bill but us. Now from the aforementioned religion's stand point they would only be hurting themselves, though certain followers might take offense and become judgemental and/or offensive. If you meant silly for another reason then I confess complete confusion and go back to chanting "EVIL

- I tell you just pure EVIL they is why they even have two nostrels..."

Yes, I mean by taking real actions for fantasy results. However, I see no reason to put them in a separate category than those who pray for miracles, other than the later is a more common form of the same syndrome. Now if you are suggesting that all these people should be treated, that is an admirable, but probably impossible, goal...

Oversway · #46 March 24th, 2005, 08:06 PM

I find it fitting that an arco blood mod thread has become a forum for discussion of ethics, morals, and religion.

Scott Hebert · #47 March 24th, 2005, 08:39 PM

Quote:

BigDaddy said:
Catholic theology defines magic as the art of performing actions beyond the power of man with the aid of powers other than the Divine, and condemns it and any attempt at it as a grievous sin against the virtue of religion, because all magical performances, if undertaken seriously, are based on the expectation of interference by demons or lost souls.

Actually, to be just a little more specific, Catholic theology frowns on the practice of magic, as you cannot be sure that the source of the supernatural power is NOT demonic in nature.

Catholic theology has remarkably little to say about what might be out there, in a supernatural sense.

Quote:

I bet your religion has a similar teaching. . .

I don't think this was directed at me, per se, but for the record, my religion IS Roman Catholicism.

BigDaddy · #48 March 24th, 2005, 08:45 PM

Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

BigDaddy · #49 March 24th, 2005, 08:53 PM

Scott,

Demons:

"In Scripture and in Catholic theology this word has come to mean much the same as devil and denotes one of the evil spirits or fallen angels. And in fact in some places in the New Testament where the Vulgate, in agreement with the Greek, has daemonium, our vernacular versions read devil. The precise distinction between the two terms in ecclesiastical usage may be seen in the phrase used in the decree of the Fourth Lateran Council: "Diabolus enim et alii daemones" (The devil and the other demons), i.e. all are demons, and the chief of the demons is called the devil. This distinction is observed in the Vulgate New Testament, where diabolus represents the Greek diabolos and in almost every instance refers to Satan himself, while his subordinate angels are described,. . ."

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/04710a.htm

Most religions have similar teachings. It is not ambiguous at all.

quantum_mechani · #50 March 24th, 2005, 09:06 PM

Quote:

BigDaddy said:
Actually that is a quote, and I'm sorry I didn't make that clear. It is the official stance of the Holy See.

Consider:

II. TOTAL AGNOSTICISM SELF-REFUTING

Total or complete Agnosticism--see (2)--is self-refuting. The fact of its ever having existed, even in the formula of Arcesilaos, "I know nothing, not even that I know nothing", is questioned. It is impossible to construct theoretically a self-consistent scheme of total nescience, doubt, unbelief. The mind which undertook to prove its own utter incompetence would have to assume, while so doing, that it was competent to perform the allotted task. Besides, it would be Impossible to apply such a theory practically; and a theory wholly subversive of reason, contradictory to conscience, and inapplicable to conduct is a philosophy of unreason out of place in a world of law.

See more about your agnostic "faith" here:

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01215c.htm

There are many flavors of agnosticism, from believing that nothing can ever be known, to the belief that there is simply not enough evidence at this time to draw conclusions about the existence of a god, to people who just don't care, and those that follow a particular religion but doubt it.

As for the second kind, which is more or less what I believe, it is rather hard to refute without some extremely strong evidence one way or the other.

EDIT: And on your definition of magic, I believe many people who try to practice magic believe that they are doing it by their own power, not necessarily aided by any other force.